S v De Ru (134/94) [1995] ZASCA 139 (23 November 1995)

S v De Ru (134/94) [1995] ZASCA 139 (23 November 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no sufficient grounds to disturb the trial court's acceptance of the evidence of Hammond, Nel, and Pienaar, whose testimonies were corroborated and not shown to be the result of improper pressure. The appellant's version of events was found to be highly improbable and inconsistent with the facts. The court held that section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not justify the appellant's use of lethal force in the Sasolburg incident, as the circumstances did not warrant such action. The appellant's attempts to conceal the true facts constituted obstruction of justice. In the Kroonstad incident, the conviction for culpable homicide was upheld, as the...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Johannes De Ru; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 1995
Case Number
134/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, F H Grosskopf, Schutz
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Obstruction of Justice, Criminal Procedure Act Section 49, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Obstruction of Justice Criminal Procedure Act Section 49 Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Johannes De Ru

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder and obstruction of justice arising from the Sasolburg incident.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conviction for culpable homicide in the Kroonstad incident was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no sufficient grounds to disturb the trial court's acceptance of the evidence of Hammond, Nel, and Pienaar, whose testimonies were corroborated and not shown to be the result of improper pressure. The appellant's version of events was found to be highly improbable and inconsistent with the facts. The court held that section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not justify the appellant's use of lethal force in the Sasolburg incident, as the circumstances did not warrant such action. The appellant's attempts to conceal the true facts constituted obstruction of justice. In the Kroonstad incident, the conviction for culpable homicide was upheld, as the...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.